Answers in Genesis was asked by the Christian Post a couple weeks ago to answer several questions relating to our production of the Bill Nye rebuttal video featuring me and Dr. Menton. The Christian Post wrote a good article but of course couldn’t include everything we wrote in response to their inquiries. I thought you might like a bit more background on our decision to produce the rebuttal video and the response to it.
1. Background to the production of our video in response to Bill Nye:Also, on Saturday Ken Ham challenged Bill Nye in his blog to publicly debate me. As of today we have had no reply but know that several people have posted a link to Ken’s blog on Bill Nye’s Facebook page. Thanks for your response, keep getting the word out, and we’ll keep you posted on any new developments.
We had watched Bill Nye's online diatribe last week. When it went viral earlier this week after many prominent websites like ABC posted the Nye video, Answers in Genesis decided that his outlandishly wrong statements needed to be challenged right away—we did not want to wait until Saturday when we post our news analysis column called News to Note. AiG had noticed that by Monday evening, more than one million people had already viewed the Nye video, so we quickly produced our own video rebuttal, featuring Dr. David Menton of our staff, who holds a PhD in biology from an Ivy League school, and me. AiG also posted two Nye-related articles on our website, including one by our president Ken Ham. [See here and here].
2. The reaction to our video and AiG articles about the Nye video:
Our video has not been posted to major websites as Nye's has, but just on YouTube alone, our video rebuttal has already been seen over 40,000 times since Wednesday afternoon. Within the atheist community, there has been a great deal of chatter on websites and on Facebook, which has included some of the most vile language imaginable from secularists. They hate God and mock us for believing in Him. This is not surprising, for the evolution/creation issue is much more than an academic debate. Because there are two contradictory worldviews in conflict (biblical Christianity vs. secular humanism), when we challenge the beliefs of atheists and other secularists, they can become very upset, and rational discussion can go out the door. The origins question often involves the heart more than the mind.
3. What else are we doing to rebut Nye?
We are making our president Ken Ham and our science faculty available to speak to the media about Mr. Nye’s ill-informed video. In addition, and although Mr. Nye does not have the scientific credentials many of our staff hold in the sciences, we are willing to engage him in a public debate. One possible venue would be the PBS TV network that has been broadcasting "Bill Nye the Science Guy" programs. Or such an evolution-creation debate could be held at a public university, using an impartial moderator. I would think that someone as polished and charismatic as Mr. Nye would relish the opportunity to debate a creationist. In addition, since Nye will soon be hosting a new science program, I would think he would like to see the publicity generated by his participation in a major public debate.
4. The influence of the videos:
For many people, the Nye video will sadly confirm in their minds that evolution and science go hand in hand. Frankly, with this approach, Nye, a former “Humanist of the year” (2010), is damaging young people and adults, especially with his belief that we are all just animals and that there is no meaning and purpose in life.
Now, we are not afraid of teaching evolution. In fact, I teach my daughter evolution, but I do it warts and all. For example, and as we show in our video rebuttal, Mr. Nye confuses observational science with historical science. I admit that Nye’s TV programs have done a great job of sharing observational science with children. This kind of science has produced some great technologies, like space shuttles, supercomputers, cures for disease, and so on. But with Nye's recent video, he is really discussing historical (or origins) science. This kind of science involves the unobservable and untestable past, and biases and presuppositions are involved. His conclusions about origins are ultimately based on his secular, humanistic worldview. Furthermore, with his prior commitment to reject the Bible altogether, he will automatically default to evolution and reject creation.
Keep fighting the good fight of the faith!